METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, time-to-event trial, 143 adults were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either intravenous eculizumab (at a dose of 900 mg weekly for the first four doses starting on day 1, followed by 1200 mg every 2 weeks starting at week 4) or matched placebo. The continued use of stable-dose immunosuppressive therapy was permitted. The primary end point was the first adjudicated relapse. Secondary outcomes included the adjudicated annualized relapse rate, quality-of-life measures, and the score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which ranges from 0 (no disability) to 10 (death).
RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 23 of the 24 prespecified adjudicated relapses, given the uncertainty in estimating when the final event would occur. The mean (±SD) annualized relapse rate in the 24 months before enrollment was 1.99±0.94; 76% of the patients continued to receive their previous immunosuppressive therapy during the trial. Adjudicated relapses occurred in 3 of 96 patients (3%) in the eculizumab group and 20 of 47 (43%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.20; P<0.001). The adjudicated annualized relapse rate was 0.02 in the eculizumab group and 0.35 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.15; P<0.001). The mean change in the EDSS score was -0.18 in the eculizumab group and 0.12 in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.01). Upper respiratory tract infections and headaches were more common in the eculizumab group. There was one death from pulmonary empyema in the eculizumab group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD, those who received eculizumab had a significantly lower risk of relapse than those who received placebo. There was no significant between-group difference in measures of disability progression. (Funded by Alexion Pharmaceuticals; PREVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01892345; EudraCT number, 2013-001150-10.).
METHODS: Using a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned participants without cardiovascular disease who had an elevated INTERHEART Risk Score to receive a polypill (containing 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril) or placebo daily, aspirin (75 mg) or placebo daily, and vitamin D or placebo monthly. We report here the outcomes for the polypill alone as compared with matching placebo, for aspirin alone as compared with matching placebo, and for the polypill plus aspirin as compared with double placebo. For the polypill-alone and polypill-plus-aspirin comparisons, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or revascularization. For the aspirin comparison, the primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety was also assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 5713 participants underwent randomization, and the mean follow-up was 4.6 years. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was lower by approximately 19 mg per deciliter and systolic blood pressure was lower by approximately 5.8 mm Hg with the polypill and with combination therapy than with placebo. The primary outcome for the polypill comparison occurred in 126 participants (4.4%) in the polypill group and in 157 (5.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.00). The primary outcome for the aspirin comparison occurred in 116 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group and in 134 (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10). The primary outcome for the polypill-plus-aspirin comparison occurred in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.97). The incidence of hypotension or dizziness was higher in groups that received the polypill than in their respective placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with a polypill plus aspirin led to a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than did placebo among participants without cardiovascular disease who were at intermediate cardiovascular risk. (Funded by the Wellcome Trust and others; TIPS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01646437.).
METHODS: In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus-coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority.
RESULTS: A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drug-coated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes. (Funded by Medtronic; ONYX ONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344653.).
METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).
METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days.
RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).
METHODS: Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial.
RESULTS: Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 [84.8%] with liraglutide and 55 [80.9%] with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide.
CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, at a dose of up to 1.8 mg per day (added to metformin, with or without basal insulin), was efficacious in improving glycemic control over 52 weeks. This efficacy came at the cost of an increased frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; Ellipse ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01541215.).
METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.
RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.
CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).